Thursday, November 30, 2017

The selection of five types of speakers does a pretty good job running the political gamut (atheists, communists, and homosexuals on the left; militarists and racists on the right). That means there are leftists who are fine with nihilistic commi faggots speaking but who don't want to extend the same courtesy to aspiring fuhrers, and vice versa, however, and that muddies things up.

Further, there are wide variances in general perceptions of what should be publicly permissible. At 86% support among the total population, homosexuals are given the green light. Only 61% say racists should be given first amendment protections, in contrast.

In attempt to deal with this, the following graphs show the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who are free speech absolutists. That is, they say members of all five 'controversial' groups should be permitted to speak publicly.

For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Because IQ ranges are based on wordsum scores, only those born in the US are considered for the five intelligence categories. White, black, and Asian racial categories are all restricted to non-Hispanics (N = 12,370):

Parenthetically, libertarianism is also a high-IQ white and Jewish male thing. Open borders are a disaster for libertarianism, which is why it has become an ideological pipeline from mainstream cuckery to the dissident right. Some libertarians like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stefan Molyneux, Jeff Deist, and Lew Rockwell get this, but most of them do not. The last of the clueless libertarians (hi, Bryan Caplan!) who do not get it will be beaten to death by a copy of Human Action a vibrant New American, unencumbered by the NAP, just stole from him.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

I want the cord cut. My wife pleads for baseball and NatGeo. So we've settled on Sling, a service that bills itself as "a la carte TV". It's $25 a month for our selections. Last night, through the course of a half-hour show, this ad played three times (at every break):

Trannies, miscegenation, fake americans, no white men--this one has it all.

The retro tube isn't one I watch much--every time I do, apost manifests--but while this commercial is loaded from beginning to end, it doesn't seem extraordinary or atypical in terms of what is acceptable in contemporary popular culture.

It was on my mind as I enjoyed Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire taking reader questions and chatting about issues that matter to ourselves and our posterity. My petty vanity aside, said ad is particularly relevant to this exchange (it's queued up so just click the center of the frame):

How can young whites with a shred of dignity be expected to do anything other than turn away from this new cultural revolution? The anti-white hate they marinate in is probably not fully appreciated by even the most based boomers like our two champions above. I still find myself surprised by it.

Making up barely half of their generational cohort, non-Hispanic whites face an uncertain future, one in which they can expect to be the recipients of nothing but disdain and disgust from the powers that be. Their backs are against the wall. They're halfway between 1950s America and 2010s South Africa. The former is in the rear view mirror. The latter is cresting the horizon.

Zyklon* is intentionally provocative, but it's also intentionally ambiguous. In a way, it's perfectly suitable for Gen Z. Zyklon was originally used as a pesticide beginning in the 1880s. It wasn't modified for use as a weapon against humans until WWI, and then most infamously by Germany in WWII.

Gen Z may lead the way to an occidental renaissance, or it may be the generation that sees the West finally burned to the ground in a civilizational bloodletting that puts the wars of the 20th century to shame. The Derb and Brimelow respectively gesture towards each potential extreme.

* Parenthetically, I can't take credit for coining the term, which I saw floating around (though I forget precisely where) before ever making use of it myself.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Israel has a population of a little over 8 million. The US has a population of nearly 330 million. Adjusting for population size, that'd be the equivalent of president Trump announcing an "accelerated removal" to send 1,500,000 infiltrators squatting in the US back to the countries they came from.

Israel already has a wall, of course. The colloquialism about them leaving us in the dust understates the reality. The dust they've kicked up will have long ago settled by the time we come shambling by it.

Q: What do you call someone who wants an ethnostate, a wall, and the mass deportation of illegal aliens living in the country?

A: An Israeli.

No hatred here. To the contrary, a begrudging admiration. We just want what (((you))) want. Is that too much to ask for?

Sunday, November 26, 2017

From a SurveyUSA poll conducted in the San Diego metro area on Trump intervening in China to pull the pampered thieves from UCLA out of the hot water they jumped into, we see an uncharacteristically strong level of support from a demographic group not generally favorable to him.

The percentages, by race, who say Trump did the right thing in intervening ("not sure" responses are omitted; N = 500):

Friday, November 24, 2017

Following are excerpts from a letter entitled "A new accountability: We can, and will, be better" sent out to all students and faculty at the University of Kansas. Yes, it was sent out to all students, some of who forwarded it to me. KU's current enrollment is 28,447.

For readers whose last contact with academia took place a decade ago or longer, things have deteriorated more than you can possibly imagine. If so masochistically inclined, read the thing in its entirety:

Earlier this month, over a thousand students, faculty members, staff persons, and administrators toured the Tunnel of Oppression. Presented by the Office of Multicultural Affairs, the Tunnel is an annual immersive experience of interactive exhibits. Participants engage with different forms of oppression associated with disabilities, economic class, body image, gender, gender expression, sexuality immigration, race and ethnicity.

Presumably there should be a comma between "sexuality" and "immigration", but I have to confess I'm not entirely sure it's an error in punctuation. Maybe it's intended to be read as written.

We left the tour with decisions to make as individuals and as KU leaders – do we stand idle and tolerate people being treated in a discriminatory manner? Or do we assert our leadership and purposefully act to create greater justice in our part of the world and beyond? We choose the latter and we need you to join us.

... inadequate governmental responses to natural disasters in places such as Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico. While these multiple visual scenes of cruelty and subjugation were disturbing, equally difficult was the collective debriefing discussion that followed.

If the phrase "government inefficiency" isn't perfectly synonymous with "cruelty and subjugation", I don't know what is!

Yes, the victims suffered, but we are able to share equally in their suffering now. We are practically being whipped by cruel slave masters as we do this important work fighting oppression.

You see, even University administrators struggle with how to understand and do justice work.

Like universities everywhere, KU is not immune. We have seen languages of terror scribbled on classroom walls, heard menacing words left on office voicemails, anonymous signage meant to incite our campus climate, and encountered unacceptable campus conduct.

What you can do today:Use the newly created Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Calendar to find workshops, speakers, and other ways of becoming informed and engaged on campus. You can also enroll in courses that broaden your knowledge such as the many classes offered through the departments of African and African American Studies, American Studies, Indigenous Studies, and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.

Sometimes to "tolerate" we must accept. Other times to "tolerate" we must reject. Remember, tolerance is about Who? Whom?

Oppression’s harmful words and cruelty occur and persist because political leaders, executives, board members, administrators and managers, supervisors, school superintendents, directors, teachers, students and others make everyday decisions to stay silent, maintain ignorance, disbelieve, foster it and/or leave it to others to address.

I had pop-tarts for breakfast so I'm having word salad for lunch.

Oppression is part of the US system of higher education. It is embedded in the unfairness of financial need.

Surely you did not think I was merely a cultural Marxist, did you? My Marxism needs no qualification.

Engage with any of our offices, such as the Office of Multicultural Affairs, Center for Sexuality and Gender Diversity, and the Emily Taylor Center for Women and Gender Equity.

If you are a cisgendered white male, ensure your chains are securely fastened before shuffling in on your knees to prostrate yourself at the feet of those you oppress.

It also negates the lived KU experiences for those minoritized and marginalized student, faculty, and staff populations that are persistently and disproportionately subject to varied forms of oppression and its harmful effects.

There is nothing more minoritized than a six-figured ($173,730 last year) black lesbian female professor of American Studies and African Studies and African-American Studies like myself. Despite the harmful effects of varied forms of oppression, I have three majors. I should earn seven-figures. That I do not shows how much work we still have to do.

We are enhancing resources for KU’s queer, trans and non-conforming gender community; undocumented students; students with disabilities; and those who are confronting food insecurity.

So we are enhancing resources for the mentally ill, foreign invaders, affirmative action babies, and land whales (no one on an American college campus has food insecurity brought on by a lack of food; it's the insecurity regarding the maximum weight load of the elevator that is at issue here). Got it?

Respondents were asked to select their "top three most important" identities from a list of eight. The full results are on page 17 of the topline, but there are three of the eight I find especially remarkable. These are race/ethnicity, ideology, and American nationality.

The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by race, who included each one among their top three from the list of eight. Keep in mind these are responses from those aged 18-34--millennials and the leading edge of zyklons:

They're not African-Americans or Asian-Americans, they're Africans in America and Asians in America.

When the boomers finally combust into oblivion, civic nationalism will flame out with them. The future will be the one the late Lee Kuan Yew described. It will then be able to burn out in the open, in all its babylonic glory:

In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

Q: If you were to travel through time to visit Madison at the convention and inform him of the result of his experiment, what advice would you offer him?

A: Pick your own cotton.

Through 1965, things were stable enough. One-tenth of the population was as well assimilated to Anglo mores and values as could reasonably be expected, and subsidization from the white supermajority appeared viable into the indefinite future.

The country's fate was truly sealed over the last five decades. The left chose to bring in foreign ringers to put them in positions of power instead of allowing the natives to pick who their leaders would be. The right decided it'd be better for The Economy to have brown peons pick their crops.

Not the racial consciousness we're after

The country is still shambling along, but the internal bleeding is so severe that collapse is a question of "when?" rather than of "if?".

Though America as a unified political entity will go extinct, heritage Americans need not do the same. Millennials are the nadir. Plenty of indicators suggest Gen Z is going to be an improvement, possibly a drastic one. Yet even among white millennials, 40% are racially conscious. That's not nothing.

On the other hand, many of those 40% could be conscious in an ethnomasochistic way, but the intention is to wrap up with something positive, so enough dwelling on that!

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Charitably, "often" isn't intended to be synonymous with "tend to", "usually", or any other word or phrase that indicates liberals are more likely to live 'family values' than conservatives do. Instead, Kristof is taken to be merely stating the bland and obvious fact that there are some liberals who often family value better than some conservatives do, just as there are some women who are taller than some men.

To continue with the undeserved grant of magnanimity, it must also be assumed that the evidence offered--that these indicators tend to look better in blue states than in red states--is incidental to the assertion rather than serving as evidence for it.

One obvious reason for the blue state-red state disparities is that red states are 26% blackerthan blue states are. The larger black populations in red states make all of the indicators Kristof mentions worse than the smaller black populations in blue states do, but the black populations in those red states--like blacks everywhere--overwhelmingly vote for the left.

Another reason is laid out in Andrew Gelman's bookRed State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State which, using data from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, shows that while across the country Republicans tend to be wealthier than Democrats, that trend is more pronounced in red states than it is in blue states.

That is, in blue states there isn't much difference in class and status between Democrat and Republican voters. In red states, however, Republicans tend to be of higher status and social class than Democrats.

Given the positive relationship between wealth and desirable outcomes on the indicators Kristof includes, this means that--especially in red states--it is those on the left who are disproportionately having the teen births, getting divorced, cheating on spouses, and renting hookers. Kristof is attributing the poor outcomes largely caused by these mostly Democrat voters in red states--where leftists tend to congregate at the bottom of the social order--on conservatives in general.

Using the GSS, the following tables show, by political orientation, the percentages of first births conceived by teenage parents, the percentages of ever-married people who were either divorced or separated at their time of participation in the survey*, the percentages who have cheated on a spouse, and the percentages who have paid for sex. The first table shows total population results. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are large--the smallest N for any of the results presented is 3,946:

The second table shows the same restricted to non-Hispanic whites:

Kristof goes 0-for-4. Self-identified conservatives do a better job embodying the family values they "preach" than self-identified liberals do.

* This method counts those who've remarried as "married" rather than as "divorced" or "separated". It consequently understates the number of marriages that have ended in divorce or separation but there is no obvious reason why this should systematically 'favor' liberals or conservatives in terms of perceived marital success.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Via Z-Man, more generationalsurvey data to chew on. This one explicitly and almost exclusively focuses on race among those aged 18-34 (mostly millennials but also the leading edge of Gen Z), so I'll make a tl;dr series of observations on it here.

- Cathy J. Cohen is the founder and principal investigator of the survey, so it's not particularly surprising that "Latinx" is used throughout in lieu of the more conventional "Hispanic" or "Latino". Incidentally, the plural of Latinx is "Latinxs" rather than "Latinxes". I wouldn't have thought! Taking a cue from Jordan Peterson, "Hispanic" will continue to be used as the description of choice here, though.

Nor is it surprising that in the section asking about which ethnic--yes, (((ethnic))), not racial--groups have the most economic power in the country, "Jews" are not included among the list of potential choices. "Whites" are and they come in on top, followed by Asians.

It's also unsurprising that the survey deals with sex differences in the following manner. Sample excerpt, my emphasis:

... signaling an important and consequential divide between Millennials that identify as men and women ...

However, no variation of the pronoun "Xir" appears in the survey, suggesting that at least one of Cohen's grandparents is a gentile.

Speaking of identifying, the string "identi"--not counting a single occurrence in the word "presidential"--shows up 29 times in the survey report. The cucks urging those on the right to reject identity politics are doing a tired Rush Limbaugh redux from the nineties. It was quixotic then and it's suicidal now.

- A majority--52%--of blacks identify "racism" from a list of 22 possible choices as one of the top three most important problems in the contemporary US, with 29% of blacks identifying it as the single most important problem in the country (health care comes in at a distant second, at 13%).

No matter what happens, this will never end. No amount of prostration to or deification of blacks will mollify them. Transferring trillions more in various welfare programs from non-blacks to blacks won't do it, either. It's with us as long as blacks are with us.

Large numbers of Hispanics and Asians--33% and 32%, respectively--also put racism in the top three. All racial problems in the US will continue to accentuate rather than ameliorate as time goes on.

In contrast, the issue of "women's rights" gets single-digits across the color spectrum, with just 4% of the total survey pool prioritizing it.

"Military strength" is another one that elicits yawns, with only 5% of respondents pointing to it. It's going to be increasingly difficult for an internal empire of squabbling tribes to maintain a functioning external empire outside its own crumbling borders.

- While there's scarcely a more reliable social formula than Diversity + Proximity = War, lots of millennials don't think Diversatopia can come fast enough. Interestingly, whites and blacks--Old Stock Americans--are more wary of increasing Diversity! than the new settlers are:

Pulled directly from the survey--color scheme designed to be unintuitive as Noticing is evil

The following graph shows free speech index scores derived from responses to the statement that "All groups should be entitled to hold parades and demonstrations, even if they
represent causes most Americans oppose, such as communism, Nazis, or white
supremacy". The index scores are created by assigning +2 points for "strongly agree" responses, +1 point for "somewhat agree", 0 points for "somewhat disagree", and -1 point for "strongly disagree":

- There's often consternation expressed among media types who report on the rightward shift of white Gen Zers. It's compounded by the fact that on the chic social issues of the day like same-sex marriage and drug legalization, Zyklons aren't "conservative" at all. But on issues of identity, they are (in the generally accepted parlance--as Richard Spencer argues, it's not clear why identitarianism is right or left, it's simply an inevitable necessity brought on by increasing diversity). They are more so than millennials, Gen Xers, and possibly even Boomers.

When America was over 80% white, special privileges for non-whites weren't something that effected--and affected--most whites. Only those on the very bottom of society had much to lose. That America is long gone.

In today's disUnited States of Diversity, white Zyklons are teetering on the edge of minority status. Special privileges for non-whites threatens the prospects of the vast majority of them. They're reacting accordingly.

To the question "Do you agree or disagree that discrimination against whites has become as big a
problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities?", whites split almost evenly with 48% agreeing and 51% disagreeing. These responses are mostly from millennials, with a dash of the front end of Gen Z thrown in. I suspect that whites currently in junior high and high school will push that "agree" figure over 50% in the coming years, probably drastically so.

- Individualism is a(n outbred) white thing. The following table shows an individualism index score, by race, computed by taking percentages of respondents who said they are "not very similar" to other members of their own race and subtracting it from the percentages of respondents who said they are "very similar" to other members of their own race. The higher the score, the more individualistic the group:

Race

Individualism

Whites

+23

Asians

+14

Hispanics

-11

Blacks

-18

If the "Asian" category didn't amalgamate people as disparate as the Japanese and Sri Lankans, the Asian score would likely move down towards NAM levels.

Friday, November 17, 2017

The apoplectic reaction to the questionable allegations about Roy Moore from nearly four decades ago is something to behold. To the extent they are accurate, they are evidence of a healthy--perhaps too healthy!--male sex drive, the kind of thing normal men fantasize about. This is in stark contrast to the pathological degeneracy of Weinstein and Louis CK, men who engaged in behavior that is repugnant to well-nigh everyone.

Some of the hatred for Moore is so viscerally unhinged as to suggest mental illness in those expressing it. Indeed, liberals have worse mental health than conservatives do. The percentages of whites who report having experienced poor mental health in the previous 30 days, by political orientation (N = 5,530; for contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward):

Among those who suffer from especially poor mental health--experiencing it at least 15 of the last 30 days--the differences by political orientation are even more pronounced. Again for whites since 2000:

Who? Whom? explains a lot, but the audacity of such blatantly selective outrage still seems remarkable.

Parenthetically, Who? Whom? is not synonymous with partisanship--not even close in this case. Mitch McConnell is calling for Moore to drop out of the Alabama senate race but hasn't called for Menendez to resign the senate seat he currently holds! He hasn't called for Al Franken to, either.

The special election in December is the current active front in the middle American insurgency against the bipartisan Cloud People. We can imagine the extent to which Moore's anti-establishment shitlord instincts are being accentuated through this process. Or we can simply watch the man in action.

If he wins, he'll work to make their lives a living hell. It's why he must win.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

From recently released FBI hate crime statistics, we find the number of white hate crime (HC) offenders declined by 3.0% from 2015 to 2016 while the number of black hate crime offenders grew by 15.2% over the same time period.

Similarly, the number of anti-White hate crime incidents increased 14.9% between 2015 and 2016 while the number of anti-Black hate crime incidents marginally decreased by 0.3% over the same time period.

HC offenders who are...

Δ'15-'16

White

-3.0%

Black

+15.2%

Incidents of...

Δ'15-'16

Anti-White HC

+14.9%

Anti-Black HC

-0.3%

Trump is obviously to blame here. All the supporters he brought out to rallies or just around town in their MAGA gear were fostering an oppressive atmosphere of hate. It is poetic justice, then, that these haters turned out to be the victims of the hatred they so hatefully released unto the world!

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Please, Anepigone, please don't do this to graphs. Yes, the numbers are there, but visual impressions count, and your graph, with the bottom at 40%, gives the misleading impression that the Mohammedans' support is only half of even blacks' (never mind that all this is self-reported and not revealed-preference) when really the ratio of the largest to the smallest bar is less than two. It's bad enough that everyone else does this with the small print, but Carlylean veracity is the only way for us.

Here is the graph he's referring to:

The sentiment is well received. The main reason it was presented as such in this particular case is because the questions considered were dichotomous ones without "don't know", "no opinion", etc as possible responses. To have visually expressed this across a fully displayed y-axis would've looked like this:

The numbers are all plainly included so it's not much of a bait-and-switch. If the worry is that it'll leave a skewed impression for those who don't give it more than a glance, well, I'm not writing in a scientific publication and I do have a subjective position on just about everything that is posted on.

That it's a coin toss as to whether or not a Muslim living in America thinks controversial speakers should be permitted to speak in public and that 1-in-3 NAMs believes they should be precluded from doing so is quite jolting for a lot of people, and my intention is to design the graphic accordingly.

Monday, November 13, 2017

The index is a simple average of the percentage of respondents who said that five different categories of controversial advocates should be allowed to speak publicly. The higher the score, the more supportive of free speech the group is. The five categories are pretty well balanced politically with three on the 'far left' (atheists, homosexuals, and communists) and two on the 'far right' (racists and militarists). For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 11,930):

Moderate and conservative whites are grouped together because their scores are so similar (73.6 and 74.8, respectively) that separating them out unnecessarily cluttered up the graph.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

The following graph comes from data from a Reuters-Ipsos poll asking about support for the Republican congressional tax reform plan. The poll has been running since mid-October, so the results are presumably mostly in response to the House plan rather than the one from the Senate, which came out last week (N = 4,390):

Inspiring.

The graph only shows "support" responses. The other two--"oppose" and "don't know"--are not shown. Thirty percent of the total population falls into the latter of the two responses that are not shown. If they were discounted, public opinion wouldn't look as bad as it does at first blush in the graph presented above.

It wouldn't look as bad, but it'd still look bad. Among those who either "support" or "oppose" among the total population, the plan gets 38.9% support to 61.1% opposition.

However it's presented, the odds of passage are long.

This would not appear to be a political hill worth dying on. Unless the intention was to ensure the Stupid Party moniker remained alive and well, that is.

Friday, November 10, 2017

In this week's Power Hour, Z-Man discussed a poll headlining with the finding that more millennials say they'd rather live in a socialist country than a capitalist one. Z gives several reasons not to read too much into this, the most salient one being that millennials don't know what socialism is--just 33% of millennials surveyed correctly defined socialism from a list of five possibly choices.

That understood, here are a few other observations of potential interest from the survey:

- Among whites, Gen Z has a less favorable opinion of communism certainly than do millennials and also probably than Xers. The survey doesn't breakdown results by both race and generational cohort, but as seen below, support for communism is much higher among non-whites than it is among whites.

Given that Gen Z is about 55% white while Gen X is closer to 70% white, it's likely that white Gen Zs report being modestly less favorably inclined towards communism than even white Xers do. Again among whites, zyklons are probably even knocking on the door of boomers, as the latter generational cohort is over 80% white.

- The following pie charts show the racial distribution of survey respondents who report having a favorable view of capitalism and who report having a favorable view of communism:

With demographic change comes economic change.

Libertarians, are you taking note? Libertarianism is a white thing. No amount of Mises or Rothbard is going to convince non-whites to come on board. The aggression principle exercised by the state on their behalf is how the gibs are got!

Non-whites understand interests come before principles. If you want a society where principles come before interests, your society has to be a white one. Being white isn't a sufficient condition for the existence of a libertarian society, but it is a necessary one.

- Gen Z's whites presumably tend towards free speech absolutism more than white millennials, boomers, and silents do, and possibly even more so than white Xers--71% for Gen Z on the whole compared to 80% of Xers on the whole support free speech being "protected regardless of what is said"--though it is again uncertain due to the survey failing to breakdown responses by both race and generational cohort.

Thursday, November 09, 2017

Trump lost the outer Swamp* 31.8%-68.2 to Clinton (in a two-way race). Gillespie lost the outer Swamp by a nearly identical 31.9%-68.1% to Northam. The outer Swamp represents nearly one-third of the state's total electorate.

Trump won the rest of the state by 6.6 points, 53.3%-46.7%. Gillespie won it by a narrower 2.4 points, 51.2%-48.8%.

How, if Gillespie kept an inch in front of Trump in the marshes and fell 3 points behind him in the rest of the state, do we get to the much reported on 4 point difference between Gillespie and Trump?

A bit of the explanation is a consequence of a larger third-party presence in the presidential election than in the gubernatorial race. If we assume third-party votes would, if given instead to one of the two leading parties, split in the same way votes to the leading parties in the state among those who actually voted for a leading party did, then the greater the third-party share, the smaller the absolute gap between the two leading party candidates will be.

The rest of the explanation comes from the fact that while turnout in the governor's race was down from the 2016 presidential election by 29% in the outer Swamp, it was down by 32% in the rest of the state.

Gillespie underperformed Trump because he couldn't get the state's rural and working-class whites out like Trump did. Gillespie failed to do that without compensating with better numbers among traditional Republicans than Trump managed.

The state's westernmost county, Lee, is illustrative. While Northam dropped just 300 of Clinton's voters, Gillespie dropped over 2,200 of Trump's--and this in a county where just 6,500 votes were cast this time around.

The veracious narrative, then, is that Gillespie lost relative to Trump not because motivated SWPLs and non-whites stormed the voting booths to stick it to Trump, but because R-Bugman Gillespie's campaign lacked Trumpism. Consequently, voters who weren't keen on voting for a Republican unless he espoused America First policies failed to activate for a globalist, establishment shill like Gillespie. The loss would've been even worse for Gillespie if not for the late stage ads attempting to pin support for sanctuary cities on Northam.

The Official Narrative will be the opposite of that. It will be that Gillespie's resort to xenophobia failed miserably, showing that Trump's 2016 victory was an aberration incapable of being repeated and that the GOP's answer in 2018 must be to return to the Principled Conservatism of Paul Ryan, running as many of his doppelgangers as possible.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Gillespie is a longtime murk dweller who was part of Dubya's presidency and of Romney's failed 2012 candidacy. He's been in the lobbying 'business' for decades. As physiognomy confirms, he's the epitome of cuckservative boomer nationalism.

Speaking of health care, it's hard to understate how poorly the Stupid Party has handled it. Premiums are skyrocketing everywhere. I've gone from paying $80 a month for myself and my family to $400 a month over a span of two years. The unAffordable Care Act is a bomb the Democrats constructed that is now exploding in the GOP's hands.

Despite nominally opposing the passage--and then campaigning for years on the repeal--of Obamacare, said Stupid Party has somehow managed to own the frustration and anger over this assault on middle America's monetary standard of living the bill has wrought. If the adults in the Democrat party are able to shut the SJWs up about all the -isms and -phobias for the next year and concentrate on health care costs instead, the 2018 mid-terms could be a route.

Northam's margin of victory was twice that of Hillary Clinton's, even though Northam did worse among non-whites than Clinton did. The WaPo helpfully includes exit poll results from 2016 alongside those from tonight's governor's race:

The numbers in the columns on the right show how much better (or worse) Clinton and Trump did relative to Northam and Gillespie. Northam's performance among non-whites was marginally weaker than Clinton's, but he stole 7 points from Gillespie among whites.

They were the whites outside of northern Virginia who came out strong for Trump last November but who were unimpressed by globalist Gillespie's late-life, half-hearted appeals to national sovereignty. As a consequence, the mean white voter shifted away from the western heartland and towards the northern Virginia government feeding troughs.

I'm skeptical that'll happen. Instead, the Narrative will likely be that Gillespie lost because he doubled down on Trumpism by talking about MS-13 (never mind that he's distanced himself from Trump since Trump announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015 and that his former bosses are two of the highest profile #NeverTrumpers in the Republican party). Paul Ryan and John McCain will call for a message of optimism and inclusion in 2018, and another chapter in The Decline and Fall of the American Empire will be written.

There isn't much difference in conceptions of ideal parental arrangements for families with young children by race or sex, but what about by age?

The following graph shows perceived optimal family arrangements by generational cohorts, organized into three categories--father as breadwinner and mother as caregiver (father FT and mother PT/home), mother as breadwinner and father as caregiver (mother FT and father as PT/home), or shared sex roles (both PT or both FT) (N = 975):

It may be gender egalitarian creep, it may be a perceived necessary adjustment to declining monetary standards of living in the US (housing prices and medical costs are what matters here--cheaper, more powerful iGadgets only make an impact at the margins when the affordability of family formation is being evaluated), some combination of the two, or something else.

Something like a relative lack of firsthand experience for younger respondents, maybe. It was never much of a question in my household, but my best friend and his wife had their first six months ago. Before their baby was born, the wife was eager to get back to work after maternity leave. When the three months were up, she was dreading it and is now contemplating staying home instead of keeping the baby in daycare. Seems like an easy call to me (money is not an issue for them) but we live in deluded times!

The question was only asked in 2012, so there are no Zyklons included in the results (the oldest were 17 at the time and the survey only includes those 18 or older). I'll be looking out eagerly for quantitative information on what they think in the coming years.

Monday, November 06, 2017

The year 2016 was one of cultural upheaval, the full significance of which will become fully apparent only with the passing of time. Since the late seventies, the GSS has regularly asked about the reasons for black underachievement in "jobs, income, and housing" (correctly assessing it to be a relevant question to be put included indefinitely in the future!). As the following graph shows, in 2016, the egalitarian responses jumped up among whites while the race realist answers went down (N = 8,212):

The graphical color scheme corresponds to the people relatively likely to give a particular reason (or reasons, which is why the totals add up to more than 100%). They are as follows:

2) Less in-born ability to learn (green) -- a crass option that allows for a suboptimal expression of HBD-informed race realism

3) Lack of education (baby blue) -- politically correct conventionalism favored by moderate leftist SWPL-types, Jews of goodwill, and some of the more cuckier cuckservatives

4) Lack of willpower or motivation (white) -- some less cucky cuckservatives and libertarians are here, though HBD-informed race realists may be as well, as "willpower" and "motivation" certainly have genetic components

Why did discrimination and education go up among whites in 2016 relative to 2014, while willpower goes down? The 2016 result records the highest percentage of whites blaming irrational discrimination on black failure since 1989. Did BLM browbeat whites into submission? Was it increased salience of the goodwhite/badwhite divide on account of the 2016 election? Simple noise in the year's survey sample?

Parenthetically, if those echo parentheses strike some as unfair, those people have partial standing. Jews go for the discrimination explanation more than white gentiles do, but their favorite explanation is the lack of educational attainment. If only Trayvon Martin could've received his aeronautical degree before a life of petty criminality was cut short instead of after it was!

The following graph shows the percentages of Jews and of white gentiles who favor each of the four explanations on offer for black underachievement (Jewish N = 217):

Sunday, November 05, 2017

To conclude this brief foray into faggotry, the following table shows the mean number of sexual partners of the orientation's desired sex in adulthood, by sexual orientation:

Nearly one-quarter of gay men report having 50 or more sexual partners. They're living the lifestyle portrayed at pride parades and in so doing are driving the average up far higher than it is for any other group.

Orthogonally, the issues with reliability inherent in something as personal as self-reported data on sexual experiences being what they are, it's worth noting that among heterosexuals the male mean is 2.8x that of the male median, while the female mean is 1.8x that of the female median. This suggests there is a subset of men who bed an exceptionally high number of women (they pull the mean up without doing much to the median). Alphas, in the Game lexicon, do indeed exist.

Friday, November 03, 2017

The following table shows the median number of sexual partners in adulthood respondents report having had, by sexual orientation and by the sex of those partners:

The stereotypes for gays and straights hold. Sperm is cheap, and gay men put a lot of it into a lot of orifices. Reliably male orifices.

A figure 'only' twice that of straight men may seem low. It may in fact be low, as self-reported responses about sexual behaviors are not the most reliable data in the world--that heterosexual male means and medians are consistently higher than heterosexual female means and medians indicates as much, since this is not mathematically possible (assuming a 50/50 gender distribution). It's not clear, though, why gay men would low-ball (heh) the estimates more than other men would.

While there is a will, there is not always a way. Smearing a queer once he's been located isn't always the hard part--finding him in the first place can be the bigger challenge. There are of course gay bars and the notorious bathhouses, bathroom stalls, etc, and now apps like Grindr, but at 1%-2% of the total population, for a gay man to casually run into another one in the course of daily life isn't a common occurrence.

For bisexuals, the attempt at empirically validating the stereotype is only partially successful. Point in favor--bisexual women are generally promiscuous, with more total partners than both normal women and rugmunchers. That every person is a potential bed mate isn't explanation enough--bisexual men trail gay men despite a broader range of people to choose from.

Point against (at least against my preconceived notion)--bisexuals tend towards more partners of the opposite sex than of the same sex. I'm especially surprised to see this among bisexual men, who I generally assumed to be gay men who didn't want to come all the way out of the closet. Instead, their numbers resemble that of heterosexual men--both have the same median number of lifetime female partners--with a couple fag flings thrown in on account of a hole being a hole.

Parenthetically, this week's episode of the Z-Blog Power Hour is what got me thinking about the material. Z-Man was reviewing some post-modern lunacy that passes for science in the academia these days about how the terms heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual were masculine constructions in service of the patriarchy or some such nonsense, which brought me back to a question I visit frequently in my head--how long will it be before the SJWs come after the GSS? The survey uses those toxically masculine descriptions, after all, and that's hardly the most Narrative-destroying thing it inquires about.

I tend to keep this question in my head most of the time. Here's urging you to do the same. The survey is a gift that keeps giving.

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Can you break that out by gender? That is, what does the distribution look like if only women are surveyed; and what does it look like if only men are surveyed?

It might be a useful red-pill to women to let them know that their fellow women would generally prefer to stay at home.

Something this obviously in accordance with nature and at odds with feminism--but I repeat myself--holds strongly across sexes.

The following table shows the net desirability score for the six possible arrangements, computed by taking the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the best of the six and subtracting from it the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the worst of the six. To avoid any potential racial confounding, we'll limit it to the white sisterhood.

For ease of visual digestion, the following graph shows the perceived optimal family arrangements, by race and by sex, broken down into three categories--father as breadwinner and mother as caregiver (father FT and mother PT/home), mother as breadwinner and father as caregiver (mother FT and father as PT/home), or shared sex roles (both PT or both FT) (N = 925):

This question was asked in 2012, not 1912. The striving careerist shrike strategy is held in low regard. It's one of the few things men, women, whites and non-whites firmly agree on.

What if, instead of campaigning on helping working women be part-time mothers, as Trump and Clinton most recently did and every major party candidate always does, a candidate campaigned on making family formation affordable enough for women to be able to be full-time mothers? Despite the perceived need for the two-income household, it will happen, and sooner rather than later.